MEP Annual Review Template

NIST MEP ANNUAL REVIEW REPORT
From: XXXX, NIST MEP Resource Manager
XXXX, NIST MEP Federal Program Officer
Subject: XXth Year Annual Review
Center Information:
Legal Recipient:
Center Name: (if different from Legal Recipient)
Cooperative Agreement: 70NANB#############
Date of Review:
Location of Review:

I.

Review Participants
Reviewers:
• Reviewer Name, NIST MEP Resource Manager
• Reviewer Name, NIST MEP Federal Program Officer
• Reviewer Name, NIST Grants Management Specialist
• Add other participants along with positions as appropriate
Center Representatives:
• XXXXXXXXX, Center Director
• Add other participants along with positions as appropriate

II.

Executive Summary and Project Analysis

The review of CENTER NAME completed on DATE OF REVIEW complies with the Hollings
Manufacturing Extension Partnership’s (MEP) enabling legislation, 15 USC 278k, and regulation,
15 CFR 290.8 (d), published September 17, 1990 and amended April 20, 1994. The program
was reviewed with respect to the areas listed below, and the Center’s performance was overall
judged to be . Specific comments and
recommendations are made at the end of the review.

Section 1: Center Background

The purpose of this section is to determine whether changes are required to the Center
Background description presented in the Center’s FFO Response/Proposal or Operating Plan.
Please indicate below if any of the background information submitted by the Center has
Page 1 of 11

Revised June 2021

changed significantly during the year, or is anticipated to change in the next year to the point
where the Center needs to re-submit an updated Center Background description by checking
the box for yes or no. If updating is needed, please note this as part of the recommendations.
Background documents must be included with renewal packages as they are considered
Required Documents. As such, the renewal timelines apply (90 days for draft; 60 days for final).
a. Strategy, Market & Business Model
Yes ☐ No ☐

i. Center Strategy
• Notes
• Notes
ii. Market Understanding
1) Market Segmentation
• Notes
• Notes

Yes ☐ No ☐

2) Needs Identification, Product/Service Offerings
• Notes
• Notes

Yes ☐ No ☐

iii. Business Model
Yes ☐ No ☐

1) Outreach and Service Delivery
• Notes
• Notes
2) Partnership Leverage and Linkages
• Notes
• Notes

Yes ☐ No ☐

iv. Performance Measurement and Management process/system

Yes ☐ No ☐

• Notes
• Notes
b. Qualifications of the Applicant; Key Personnel and Organizational Structure

Page 2 of 11

Revised June 2021

Yes ☐ No ☐

i. Key Personnel 1
• Notes
• Notes

Yes ☐ No ☐

ii. Organizational Structure 2
• Notes
• Notes

Section 2: Operating Outcomes

The purpose of this section is to document the Center’s progress towards its objectives as
developed in their Operating Outcomes statement. In addition to discussing the progress the
Center has made towards its objectives, please discuss any distinctive practices that might be
gleaned from the Center’s success. Address the Center’s progress towards achieving goals for
the plan submitted, challenges, risks, and opportunities.
Operating Outcomes must be included with renewal packages as they are considered Required
Documents. As such, the renewal timelines apply (90 days for draft; 60 days for final).
Center Client Activity Levels by Type of Company
a) Client Activity levels with a focus on very small, rural, emerging, small and mid-sized
enterprises (SMEs), and other manufacturers: NIST MEP Strategic Goal; Enhancing
Competitiveness. Please discuss the Center’s client Activities with Small and Mid-sized
enterprises (SME’s) with a particular emphasis on small, rural and start-up SME’s in the most
recent time period.

b) Transformational Clients: NIST MEP Strategic Goal; Enhancing Competitiveness. Please
discuss the Center’s work with Transformational Clients in the most recent time period.

Top and Bottom Line Growth

1

Please note, if any of the Key Personnel have changed or will be changing the appropriate prior approval
requirements must be followed as stated in the Hollings MEP General Term and Conditions.

As part of the certification process please ensure that the Oversight Board meets the current Hollings MEP
General Terms and Conditions.

2

Page 3 of 11

Revised June 2021

a) Engagement in “Top Line Growth”: NIST MEP Strategic Goal; Enhancing Competitiveness.
Please discuss the Center’s work in Top Line Growth in the most recent time period.

b) Engagement in “Bottom Line Growth”: NIST MEP Strategic Goal; Enhancing Competitiveness.
Please discuss the Center’s work in Bottom Line Growth in the most recent time period.

c) Making New Technologies Available: NIST MEP Strategic Goal; Enhancing Competitiveness.
Please discuss the Center’s work in making new technologies available in the most recent
timeperiod.

d) Other Key Initiative of the Center: NIST MEP Strategic Goal; Support National, State, and
Regional Manufacturing Eco-Systems and Partnerships. Please discuss the Center’s work in
supporting the NIST MEP Strategic Goal to support national, state, and regional manufacturing
eco-systems and partnerships.

e) Board Development: NIST MEP Strategic Goal; Serve as Voice to and Voice for
Manufacturers. Please discuss the Center’s board activities to support serving as the voice to and
voice for manufacturers.

f) Performance Measures. Please discuss the Center’s performance measures using the data set
attached. Is the Center performing acceptably against their goals and objectives? Provide any
explanation for performance against goals that are much lower than expected or much higher.
Staff Development and Capabilities: Discuss any progress or changes to broaden and improve
the Center’s competencies.

Page 4 of 11

Revised June 2021

Section 3: Financial Performance
The purpose of this section is to discuss the Center’s performance against its approved budget, and to determine whether updates
to the existing budget are necessary. This section will also help the Center identify what documentation must be submitted to NIST
MEP to update its cooperative agreement and renew the award. Revisions to any of the information below require updated forms
and prior approval. All Federal forms should align with the detailed budget tables and narrative.
Federal Forms
1

2

SF-424 “Application
for Federal
Assistance” (CFDA
#11.611)
Five-Year Budget
Summary Table

When to
Submit
As applicable

Questions to Ask

Update
Required
Annually

Have prior year or future year
budgets changed based on the most
recent financial performance of the
center? If so, submit a request using
the current template.

Y/N

Comments

Has any information from your initial
submission changed? If so, submit a
revised form.

*Note that, unless specifically
requested, changes to prior year
budgets should be reflected in the
Five-Year Budget Summary Table only.
Centers are not required to submit
revised detailed budget workbooks to
reflect changes in prior years.
3

CD-511 “Certification
Regarding Lobbying”
(signed)

Required
Annually

Page 5 of 11

Revised June 2021

4

Approved Indirect
Cost Rate (IDC)
Agreement or
submitted IDC Rate
Proposal Transmittal
Letter

Required
Annually, as
applicable

Compliance with 2 CFR 200 “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements” and the NIST MEP
General Terms and Conditions is a condition for receiving NIST MEP federal assistance.

1

MEP Budget
Documents
One-Year Budget
Workbook for
upcoming operating
period(s)

When to
Submit
As applicable

Questions to Ask

Y/N

Comments

1. Are you requesting to carry over
Unexpended Federal Funds (UFF)
from the prior operating year? Will
it be used ABOVE or TOWARD
base? If so, submit a request on the
“Revenue” tab of the most current
workbook template and adjust
your Five-Year Budget to reflect the
carry over
2. Are you requesting to carry-over
Unexpended Program Income
(UPI)*? If so, submit a request on
the “Revenue” tab of the most
current workbook template and
adjust your Five-Year Budget to
reflect the carry over.

Page 6 of 11

Revised June 2021

3. Have the Center’s planned revenue
sources changed? If so, submit a
revised revenue description.
4. Has the Center’s budget changed
significantly or does the Center
plan to make changes to the
budget that were not previously
approved? If so, submit a revised
budget narrative.
2

3

Draft proposed
Subrecipient
(SRA)/Third-Party
Contributor (TPC)
Summary Table and
any associated
agreements of
$150,000 or more
Draft proposed
contracts with
budgeted amounts of
$150,000 or more

Required
Annually, as
applicable

Does the Center have SRA or TPC
agreements with valuations of
$150,000 or more? If so, submit draft
agreements including detailed budget
tables and narratives.

Required
Annually, as
applicable

Does the Center have contracts with
valuations of $150,000 or more? If so,
submit draft agreements including
information on proposed pricing and
fees.
Does the Center have amended
multiyear contracts with valuations of
$150,000 or more? If so, submit draft
amendment page(s) including
information on proposed pricing and
fees, if applicable.

Page 7 of 11

Revised June 2021

* Per the MEP General Terms and Conditions, carry over of UPI is limited to 50% of the total Federal amount of the award.
Comments on the overall financial performance of the center:
The purpose of this section is to capture any other information needed to provide insight into the overall financial performance of
the center. Overall are they drawing down federal funding over the award period (five years) as anticipated, has the structure of
their financial model remained the same (for instance if shifting to a brokered model is that successful), overall are they struggling
financially (such as losing money year-over-year) or in a neutral of net positive position, etc. No more than one to two paragraphs.
Funding Sources (as it relates to MEP activities) and Cost Share/Match
Funding Sources Table -- EXAMPLE Can this be pulled from MEIS?

Federal Funds
State and local funds
Program Income
Other-SRAs

Year 6
Actuals for Year
Budgeted
6 (as of 12-31-20)
$3,410,118.00
$1,506,638.51
$1,282,415.00
$556,025.00
$294,703.00
$123,345.02
$1,833,000.00
$759,945.76
$6,820,236.00
$2,945,954.29

Cost Share/Match Amounts

State and local funds
Program Income
Other-SRAs

$X,282,415.00
$294,703.00
$1,833,000.00
$3,410,118.00

Percent
spent in
Year 6
44%
43%
42%
41%
43%

38%
9%
54%

Page 8 of 11

Revised June 2021

Other
● IDC rate
o XXX is cognizant agency and their IDC is effective until XXXXXX
● Budget preparation and justification quality is satisfactory.
● D&B Report/Financial Risks
o The D&B report indicates the center has a low risk in all areas but the Credit Limit Recommendation which is at a
moderate risk. As the center is directly connected to the University this is not a concern.
• Notes
• Notes

Page 9 of 11

Revised June 2021

III.
Center Performance
The outcome of the annual review finds CENTER Name operation to be
satisfactory/unsatisfactory.
IV.

Identified Areas for Improvement

The purpose of this section is to identify any potential deficiencies that may be identified during
a Panel Review. Potential deficiencies may be failure to comply with legal requirements of the
award, failure to comply with financial requirements of the program, or failure to execute on
critical programmatic aspects as a NIST MEP center. Potential deficiencies are significant
enough that the legal, financial or programmatic health of the center is threatened if the
potential deficiency is not addressed. The purpose of identifying potential deficiencies in the
Annual Review is to allow the center time to address any that may be identified through the
Annual Review process. Has the Center met its reporting requirements? (SF-425, Progress
Narrative, etc.). Has the Center satisfied of the prior year’s Special Award Conditions?
• Compliance Issue #1
• Compliance Issue #2
V.

Identified Risks

The purpose of this section is to make a short list of known risks, including information on
corrective actions and timeframes for resolutions. Risks should be included in success plans.
• Identified Risk #1
• Identified Risk #2
VI.

Recommendations

The purpose of this section is to make a short list of recommendations that the Center could
consider studying and/or adopting to improve their overall performance and effectiveness.
• New Recommendation #1
• New Recommendation #2
VII.

Progress on Previous Recommendations

The purpose of this section is to discuss progress made by the center on the major
recommendations made during the last Review, if appropriate. List each recommendation and
discuss the progress. If this is a first-year Annual Review, simply identify this as not applicable.
Page 10 of 11

Revised June 2021

• Recommendation Progress #1
• Recommendation Progress #2
VIII.

Other Observations
• Observation #1
• Observation #2

IX.

Attachments
• 4-quarter CARD/impact metrics
• Standard Tables: Client Activity Goals, MEP Metrics Map, Survey Continuity

cc.

Center Director
Oversight Board Chair
Center Director’s Supervisor, if part of a host institution
Grants Management Specialist

Certification: By signing this report, I certify that the financial information provided at the
time of the annual review was correct to the best of my knowledge and that the Financial
Performance section is accurate:
Name:

_________________________________

Title:

_________________________________

Signature: _________________________________
Center Director or Authorized Representative
Date:

_________________________________

Page 11 of 11

Revised June 2021